New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that if individuals begin questioning religious practices or matters of faith before constitutional courts, it could result in a flood of petitions challenging various rituals, ultimately leading to the “breaking of religions and civilisation”.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench is hearing petitions concerning alleged discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as broader questions on the scope of religious freedom across faiths, including the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The bench comprises Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.
The Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community has filed a public interest litigation challenging a 1962 judgment that upheld the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949, which made excommunication of any community member illegal.
The 1962 Constitution Bench had ruled that the power of excommunication exercised by the religious head of the Dawoodi Bohra community formed part of its religious affairs, and that the 1949 law infringed the community’s rights under Article 26(b) of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for a group of reformist Dawoodi Bohras, argued that practices arising from secular or social conduct of individuals cannot receive protection under Article 25 or qualify as matters of religion under Article 26. He further submitted that even practices with religious elements cannot override fundamental rights if they significantly and adversely affect them.
Responding to these submissions, Justice B V Nagarathna said that if every religious practice is open to judicial challenge, it would lead to an overwhelming number of petitions questioning temple practices such as openings, closures, and rituals. “We are conscious of this,” she said.
Justice M M Sundresh added that allowing such disputes could destabilise religious structures and burden constitutional courts. “Every religion will break and every constitutional court will have to be closed,” he remarked, adding that unchecked challenges could lead to repeated questioning of established practices.
He further noted that while individual grievances may involve civil wrongs, extending them into religious disputes could become regressive. “To what extent can we go in a country like ours which is progressive and on the move is the question,” he said.
Justice Nagarathna observed that India’s uniqueness lies in being a civilisation marked by deep pluralities and diversity. She said diversity is a strength, while noting that the relationship between human beings and religion remains a constant feature of Indian society.
She added that courts must carefully consider whether religious practices can be questioned, by whom, and at what level—within a denomination, through reform, or via judicial intervention. “What we lay down is for a civilisation that is India. India must progress despite everything. There is a constant in us. We cannot break that constant,” she said, adding that this remains a matter of concern for the court.
Ramachandran, however, argued that India is a civilisation under the Constitution, and anything contrary to constitutional principles cannot continue in a civilised society. He maintained that it is the court’s responsibility to adjudicate such issues and “it cannot throw its hands up” citing the possibility of multiple petitions.
With PTI inputs